Black, A. (2005). The use of asynchronous discussion: Creating a text of talk. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 5(1). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss1/languagearts/article1.cfm
The Use of Asynchronous Discussion: Creating a Text of Talk
State University of New York, College at Oneonta
Asynchronous discussion allows students to read and respond "out-of-time."
This form of online discussion, as experienced in a college literacy course,
creates a text of talk that has the potential to be reflective given the
freedom participants have in their response time. However, students often
struggle with reflection. Instructors need to structure discussion online
so that it becomes a forum for communication as well as critical thinking.
They also need to view writing online as both process (discussion) and
product (document to be assessed).
Twenty years. That is the time difference that separates the research findings
by Durkin (1978-1979) and Pressley (1998). Yet the results are the same. Durkin
in 1978 initially reported that teachers did not teach students to comprehend,
yet these same students were tested on comprehension skills they were expected
to acquire. Twenty years elapse, and Pressley comes to the same conclusion
after observing fourth and fifth graders. The only difference in variables
seems to be the tests on comprehension themselves. Are Durkin's findings still
relevant today? Another five years have passed since the last study, so it
may be difficult to say. However, after reading the chapter, it seems that
Pressley still seems to think so (Farstrup & Samuels, 2002, p. 303). [Referring
to instruction in reading comprehension during an asynchronous discussion,
this quote is a student's partial response to the question “Are Durkin's
findings still relevant today? Explain."]
As an instructor at a rural four year college, I have taught online graduate
literacy courses in both elementary and secondary teacher education programs
for 6 years. My courses rely heavily upon students' discussion online, and I
am interested in the use of asychronous or out-of-time discussion. Because I
teach literacy and focus on the English language arts, I am especially interested
in this type of online discussion that allows students to read and respond at
any time and create a text of talk or a written product of their discussion.
Literature that looks at asynchronous discussion as a viable form of discussion
or as the creation of a text of talk is scarce. Therefore, this article shares
my experiences with asynchronous discussion and embeds them within the context
of current teaching and assessment.
In an online course that utilizes asynchronous discussion, students have a
password to access the course site on the Internet. Within the course is a structure
for asynchronous discussion allowing students to post questions and responses
to colleagues, as well as to read what has been posted, as often as they wish.
Such postings may be structured by the course instructor as to quantity and
quality. For example, in the checklist I have created (see
appendix), students were required to meet specific criteria as to quality
of response. They were also required to respond at least five times, with three
of those times an informal response and two, a reflective response.
An informal response is defined as language in a conversational tone that
may be sharing or describing an experience rather than answering the question
and making connections to the text, responding positively to a peer’s
“talk,” or asking a question. Figure 1 is an example of a nonreflective,
Current Forum: Chapter 10: Historical Fiction and MacLeod (E-Reserve:
Modern Models in Historical Fiction") Read 23 times
Date: Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:02 pm
Subject: Re: Question 1
The responses I've read so far to this question, from Corey and Linda,
have been very informative. You have both done a very good job in distinguishing
between contemporary realistic fiction and historical fiction.
My reasoning behind coming up with this question had to do with a book
report that one of my daughters was working on a couple of months ago.
Her teacher had assigned a "realistic fiction" book report,
and my daughter asked me to help her choose a book. To make a long story
short, we picked out three books. They all fit under the "realistic"
and "fiction" categories, but two of them happened to deal
with events that happened in the past. After choosing the books, I did
caution my daughter about asking her teacher which, if any, of the books
she could use. As it turns out, the teacher wanted the class to use
"contemporary realistic fiction" books. Before reading the
two chapters (9 and 10) of our text, I was unclear about the distinction
between these two genres and, since the teacher didn't specify, wanted
to make sure my daughter had all of her bases covered. I have found
it difficult, at times, being a parent who also happens to be a teacher.
I try to help my children as much as I can, but I also offer the caveat
that the way I do things might be a little different than what their
teachers might want them to do, so they should always defer to what
their teacher says. After all, I'm not the one handing out their grades.
Current Thread Detail:
Question 1 Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:02 pm
1 Sat Nov 15, 2003 11:27 am
Re: Question 1 Sat Nov 15, 2003 2:29 pm
Re: Question 1 Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:57 pm
Re: Question 1 Sun Nov 16, 2003 7:35 pm
Re: Question 1 Tues Nov 18, 2003 11:16 pm
Figure 1. Example of a nonreflective, informal
During an online discussion for a course on children’s literature, a
student responded informally to the question, “Compare contemporary realistic
fiction and historical fiction. How are they similar? How are they different?”
(see Figure 1). This student responded to other students positively. He also
described an experience and, while making a point, meandered and did not critically
analyze the difference between the two book genres. His response lacked any
reflection and its conversational tone would relegate it to the status of an
A reflective response involves critical thinking and focuses on what students
in the classroom may have learned. Such a response also considers possibilities
and results in a deeper understanding of the issue. The reflective piece in
Figure 2 responded to the question, “Aside from a well-constructed plot,
convincing characterization, a worthwhile theme and an appropriate style, what
other considerations must guide the evaluation of a well-written fantasy?”
This student also positively responded to a colleague. However, she made a connection
to the text and, while she shared a classroom experience, she built on that
experience by focusing on what her students may have learned.
I require that all five responses occur over a period of 6 days or more. I
have found this structuring of time frame to be vital; otherwise, some students
post all their responses the day before class, and it is unlikely anyone will
read them. I liken this to coming to class when everyone else has left the room.
I have found it possible to mandate a quantity of "talk" through
specific assignment criteria noted in the checklist, (see appendix)
such as five responses over a minimum of 6 days. However, the facilitation of
students' reflective talk has proven to be more difficult. Over the past 6 years,
I have solicited feedback regarding asynchronous discussion in the form of brief
surveys given to my students in the online courses I have taught. These are
graduate education students, most of whom are practicing teachers. A total of
92 graduate students were surveyed and responded over six semesters. An overwhelming
95% of the students responded positively to the use of asynchronous discussion
as a forum for discussion. Although they believed that the criteria to my assessment
of their online talk "was very clear and helpful" and "they were
evaluated fairly," I am still seeking ways to enhance their reflection
and thoughtful responses. Throughout this paper, my students' feedback will
be included to support concepts integral to my premise that asynchronous discussion
is a viable forum for discussion, especially in facilitating critical thinking
Discussion or "purposeful conversation in which several individuals participate"
(Dejnozka & Kapel, 1991, p. 179) has long been a component of learning and
understanding. With the advent of computer technology, discussion has also become
a major component in online education. Faigley (1992) defined this online "talk"
as a hybrid with elements of both written and spoken language. Such discussion
may be in real time, as in a "chat room" where students engage in
synchronous discussion, or it may be through the use of a "bulletin board,"
as in asynchronous discussion where students are able to post questions and
responses at any time.
Chapter 7: Modern Fantasy and articles (Barron and Rockman) Read 35 times
Date: Wed November 3, 2004 12:10 am
Subject: Re: Question 3
Mary, I agree with your response to Meghan's question. I too feel that
one of the most important considerations is whether or not the author
makes the fantasy believable. As Huck cited in our reading, "We call
our individual fantasies dreams, but when we dream as a society, or human
race, it becomes the sum total of all our hopes. Fantasy touches our deepest
feelings...it speaks to the best and most hopeful parts of ourselves..."
Huck also cites that, "...imagination...permits us to give credence
to alternative realities" (308). The more believable an author makes
a fantasy, the more connections to life a reader will be able to make.
Many of you may recall my experiences with the fantasy, Tuck Everlasting
from previous classes, but I feel it is worth mentioning again here. Babbitt's
story of everlasting life allows children to really explore what the reality
of such a concept is by using their imaginations. I was very excited at
how well my 5th graders responded to this idea and were able to discuss
the pros and cons of this concept passionately in class discussions (during
a mock trial of Mae Tuck) and in their written work. The connections that
the students were able to make was in fact due to the wonderful imagery
that the author used in her writing to help make the story feel real to
Current Thread Detail:
Question 3 Wed Nov 3, 2004 12 :10 pm
Re: Question 3 Thurs Nov 4, 2004 10:41 am
Re: Question 3 Thurs Nov 4, 2004 9:24 pm
Re: Question 3 Fri Nov 5, 2004 11:04 pm
Re: Question 3 Sat Nov 6, 2004 7:52 am
Re: Question 3 Sun Nov 7, 2004 9:41 am
3 Sun Nov 7, 2004 10:11 am
Re: Question 3 Sun Nov 7, 2004 3:44 pm
Re: Question 3 Tues Nov 9, 2004 5:12 pm
Re: Question 3 Tues Nov 9, 2004 7:33 pm
Re: Question 3 Thurs Nov 10, 2004 10:11 pm
Re: Question 3 Sat Nov 12, 2004 4:21 pm
Re: Question 3 Sat Nov 12, 2004 7:52 pm
|Figure 2. Example of a reflective response.
Asynchronous discussion allows for reflective thought and "talk,"
components valued in effective discussion. These same components make asynchronous
discussion more viable than synchronous discussion in fostering higher order
thinking, social construction of meaning, and reflection (Collison, Elbaum,
Haavind, & Tinker, 2000; Davidson-Shivers, Tanner, & Muilenberg, 2000;
The literature on reflection within online discussion in the domain of online
teaching is scarce. In one study, Lehman, Warfield, Palm, and Wood (2001) examined
the online discussion forum in an attempt to help elementary mathematics teachers
develop their teaching in ways consistent with reform. Online discussion was
found to help them reflect on their own teaching. It also allowed them to see
how and what other teachers do and to make connections to their own teaching
and understanding of classroom practice.
From data collected through the survey, I found that all of my students agreed.
One responded that online discussion "allowed me to hear everyone's ideas.
This would never have been possible during a regular class period." Another
noted that online discussion "was effectively used because we had time
to explore the course information with others, seeing their points of view and
hearing other's ideas."
Reflection requires that teachers "look behind our professional facades,
and examine our less confident practitioner selves" (Burge, Laroque, &
Boak, 2000, p. 84). Reflecting on our practice means observing how we did what
we did (analytical), questioning our assumptions, considering new ideas, and
determining how well we did what we did (evaluative; see Cowan, 1998). One of
the reasons that reflection, although highly touted in professional development,
may not be valued or practiced is that it challenges us and may cause discomfort
and uncertainty, resulting in what Schon called "restructuring" (1983,
p. 35) of what we believe, know, and do.
Burge et al. (2000) conducted a reflective analysis of their personal online
professional development enacted completely through online discussions. They
found it to be very challenging because "being online meant being on the
line, that is, worrying about less-than-perfect participation and feeling susceptible
to reduced self-esteem and critical judgments from peers" (p. 95). However,
inquiry and reflection may serve as a way to move from defensive reactions and
personal positions toward an inner exploration of why these views are held.
In an attempt to place asynchronous discussion within the context of my current
literacy teaching and assessment, I will explore this form of discussion with
a focus on (a) language and learning from a social constructivist perspective,
(b) its use as a forum for communication and critical thinking, and (c) writing
online as both process (discussion) and product (document to be assessed).
Language and Learning from a Social Constructivist Perspective
The pedagogical rationale for discussion is best understood from the social
constructivist perspective. Oliver and Naidu (1996) claimed that explaining,
elaborating, and defending one's position forces learners to integrate and elaborate
on knowledge in ways that facilitate higher order learning. Embedded in the
social constructivist perspective is the concept that thinking processes and
the growth of knowledge result from both personal interactions in social contexts
and the appropriation of socially constructed knowledge (Bruffee, 1993; Moll
& Greenberg, 1990). This perspective argues that knowledge is created by
the individual in an attempt to bring meaning to new information, as well as
to integrate this knowledge with the individual's prior experience. Students
are then viewed as participants in the construction of meaning through their
interactions with others, with such interactions mediated through spoken and
written language. The classroom may be seen as a sociocultural system in which
language plays a vital role. In particular, discussion among students on specific
knowledge has the potential to motivate inquiry and to create a learning context
in which collaborative meaning making occurs (Mason, 1998; Pontecorvo, 1990).
Dialogue and discourse, talk that is oral or written, occurs in the social
constructivist classroom and has many voices. It is this concept of "multivoice"
(Bakhtin, 1981) that characterizes such a classroom. This concept of "multivoice"
was noted by my students who appreciated the ability of online discussion as
a way for everyone's voice to be heard. "The struggle between different
conceptual systems – the speaker's and the listener's – creates
new elements and an understanding that differs from what the conversants had
before" (Dysthe, 1996, p. 390). If dialogue were to be considered as purposeful
online discussion, then the speaker would become the writer, the listener the
reader, and due to the number of participants, online discussion would become
Mason's (1998) descriptive study of the role of oral and written discourse
investigated large and small group discussion to determine if the sharing of
information resulted in a greater understanding of content. Results indicated
that the sharing of what participants knew through discussion helped to activate
important thought processes. My students agreed, with one responding "at
first, I struggled with it (discussion online). But before long, I was very
comfortable. It was a wonderful way to explore new ideas."
Mason concluded that both oral and written discourse were "important
pedagogical strategies to be promoted for knowledge construction and reconstruction
in the classroom" (p. 384). Again my students agreed. Through the use of
asynchronous discussion, one noted "I got to 'hear' everyone else's view
and ideas. Questions and responses were posed that I never would have even considered."
Another said, "I thought it provided insights and a great way to hear of
other teachers' actual hands-on practice."
Traditionally used as a tool for thinking and socially negotiating meaning,
discussion has become a major online strategy that continues to facilitate the
social construction of meaning. Because asynchronous discussion is the online
environment that may be best suited to the human interactions so essential to
learning (Feenberg, 2001), it will be explored as a forum for communication
and critical thinking.
The Use of Asynchronous Discussion
Good discussion, whether in class or online, requires teachers "to facilitate
the engagement of students in a dialogical process that produces increasingly
sound, well grounded, and valid understanding of a topic or issue" (Lang,
2000, p. 24). As noted earlier, good discussion also moves from a sharing or
descriptive content to one of reflection and critical thinking.
Critical thinking may be considered “self-directed, self-disciplined,
self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking” (Scriven & Paul, 2004).
It entails careful observation of what is read, heard, or observed followed
by a thoughtful, organized analysis that results in a logical, reasoned response.
Davidson-Shivers et al. (2000) examined how graduate students participated
in both synchronous and asynchronous discussion. They found that, although students
enjoyed both forms of online discussion, asynchronous discussion provided an
opportunity for them to give reflective, thoughtful responses to posed questions
and to provide insightful reaction to others' opinions and ideas.
Comparing asynchronous and synchronous discussion, Bhattacharaya (1999) also
found that learners preferred asynchronous discussion because it gave them an
opportunity to read and craft responses and to reflect and be better able to
think critically before responding. My students agreed, with one declaring "I
like the asynchronous discussion because it gave me time to really consider
the material and think about my response." Another stated, "I like
this style of discussion more than a 'chat' session. I found myself thinking
deeply about my responses and responding more from both my experience and my
Discussion is more than crafted responses, and asynchronous discussion has
the capacity to allow for both informal and formal or reflective talk. The latter
follows a set of established criteria, and in my courses is focused on what
I term “finished reflective pieces.” However, because discussion
is a form of communication, informal talk should also be allowed. For example,
the informal talk in Figure 3 responded to the online question, “How do
you/will you promote the use of nonfiction in the classroom?”
Current Forum: Chapter 11: Nonfiction, Chapter 12: Biography, and Giblin
("Ask the Author", "Issue to Consider") Read 28 times
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 8:56 pm
Subject: Re: Chapter 11 Question 1
Wendy, in regards to your request for non-fiction titles for the fourth
grade level, I have a few suggestions. I teach fourth grade, but my concentration
is in social studies. However, I recently discovered that the "Magic
School Bus" series now consists of chapter books, some dealing with
the science curriculum in fourth grade. Two topics that come to mind are
electricity and magnetism. They are leveled at 3rd grade which is excellent
because we all know that at each grade level, we have readers at above,
on-level, and below level.
In addition, I recommend a catalog I use to order non-fiction from school
called Sundance. There are several options available at varying levels.
I hope this helps.
Current Thread Detail:
Chapter 11 Question 1 Mon Dec 1, 2003 8:56 pm
11 Question 1 Fri Dec 5, 2003 6:48 pm
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:47 am
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 6, 2003 11:06 am
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:04 pm
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:47 pm
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:18 pm
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sun Dec 7, 2003 1:18 pm
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sun Dec 7, 2003 4:28 pm
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:56 pm
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Fri Dec 12, 2003 9:04 pm
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 13, 2003 9:39 am
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 13, 2003 4:19 pm
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 13, 2003 7:02 pm
Re: Chapter 11 Question 1 Sat Dec 13, 2003 7:37 pm
|Figure 3. Example of informal talk.
Although this response does not critically answer the question, it allows peers
to share their expertise and experiences within the framework of an asynchronous
discussion. This type of response does receive some credit because it documents
the student’s presence and participation online. It also provides a greater
range of online talk.
I require students to respond at least three times in an informal manner, including
some sharing of information or experiences, asking of questions, or simply noting
how they appreciated what someone else had said. Some other examples of such
talk include the following. One student noted online, after exploring a specific
Web site a peer had posted, "This is really a great website! I couldn't
believe all the information available. It will be very useful. Thanks for sharing
Another student responded to a peer's talk about the importance of teaching
to students' needs, especially those for whom English is a second language (ESL):
Jodi's sensitivity and awareness of issues regarding ESL students are to
be highly commended. There are so many strategies and concepts that ESL teachers
would love to share with their colleagues. By cooperating and forming partnerships
with ESL teachers and having them share their expertise in the teaching of
ESL, teachers can greatly benefit from their newly acquired knowledge and
in the process help their students who come from different linguistic backgrounds.
Although clear and supportive, this is still an informal, uncritical response.
It does not note specific examples of ESL strategies and concepts and fails
to analyze how the partnership’s ESL teachers form with other teachers
may benefit each. Compare this response to the response in Figure 4. In a children's
literature course, while discussing contemporary realistic fiction, specifically
survival stories, a student validated a peer's response but also asked a question
that raised the discussion to a level beyond sharing.
In this reflective response, the writer took the class from a point they knew
(“survival is basic instinct”) and challenged them with a thought-provoking
question. She analyzed the concept of survival and considered new possibilities.
Another example of online talk that exhibits attributes of critical thinking
is the response to the question “What is schema theory? Explain why it
is important to the reading process?” (see Figure 4). This student responds
to a peer with some positive feedback. She then continues to build on the concept
of schema theory, making specific connections to the text and analyzing the
issue clearly from the point of view of the classroom teacher. Her language
is professional, yet accessible and provides some general guidelines for other
Current Forum: Chapter Five Discussion: Building the Background Knowledge
of Students Read 18 times
Date Tues Oct 19, 2004 11:11 am
Subject: Re: Question 1-Schema theory
You did an excellent job of explaining what schema theory is. I like the
way that chapter five discusses schema as a "mental blueprint."
As each child acquires new information, this knowledge is organized by
linking this new information with previously learned knowledge. This shows
just how important building prior knowledge is for all people. In order
to gain new knowledge, students must build on the knowledge they already
have. If there is no knowledge to be used as a basis, it is up to teachers
to supply this new knowledge.
In chapter five, the importance of "connecting the intent of words
to what is already stored in one's schemata (eye to brain)" was called
real reading. In thinking about this, I realized how true this was for
all students. By simply seeing or saying words, the students will not
be truly taking in new knowledge. Instead, students must connect these
words with their own mental blueprint or things they already know. This
takes learning from a surface level to a more engaging, reflective level.
Encouraging students to tap into their prior knowledge and helping them
build knowledge if it is lacking, is essential if we expect students to
be successful with reading. Schemata allows students to experience success
in the content areas if it is organized in a way that allows them to access
previous experiences easily. This is where teachers must step in. In order
for students to organize schemata, teachers must build on what students
already know and provide information for those students who have limited
Current Thread Detail:
Question 1-Schema theory Tues Oct 19 2004 11:11 am
Re: Question 1-Schema theory Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:15 am
1-Schema theory Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:24 pm
Re: Question 1-Schema theory Sat Oct 21, 2004 10:28 am
Re: Question 1-Schema theory Sat Oct 21, 2004 1:56 pm
Re: Question 1-Schema theory Sun Oct 22, 2004 7:46 pm
|Figure 4. Example of reflective response.
I have found that one of the main benefits of asynchronous discussion lies
in the fact that this forum for talk may be used at the students' convenience
– any time, any place. Another benefit is the time possible for students
to reflect and compose a response. Time for reflection has the potential for
more critical and thoughtful responses. The text of talk, as documented online,
indicates that increased student participation and a written record are other
benefits for the class, as well as the instructor. One of my students stated,
"It's easier to express your ideas online. I don't think people are as
willing to talk face to face." This reaction to the use of asynchronous
discussion indicates that writing may allow some students to take more risks
and be more expressive than talking with peers in a traditional classroom.
However, the increasing shift from the traditional classroom to an online format
poses enormous challenges to both instructors and learners.
The concept of the classroom where students meet to interact with other learners
and the instructor no longer exists. The instructor can no longer 'look' around
the room to see if students are attending to the material, bored, or confused.
(Misanchuk, Anderson, Craner, Eddy, & Smith, 2000, p. 300)
In fact, the natural social outlet of the classroom where learners engage with
peers is replaced by the computer screen. If a student does not actively participate
in the online discussion, he does not exist. Therefore, student participation
is vital not only for the sharing of ideas and reflection, but also for validation
of each student's membership in the classroom community.
Also inherent in this isolation is the need for self-motivation. My students
were very aware of this, stating, "Self-monitoring challenges me because
when I am home, I tend not to think of school until one or two days before class."
Another student discussed her difficulty at times in understanding what was
being asked and even discussed. She noted, "But after I would reread the
text, the question and discussion would make more sense." A third student
said, "I had to motivate myself to get on the computer all the time,"
adding, "It made me grow as a person."
Through my own experiences and through feedback received from my students,
I have found other disadvantages of asynchronous discussion. These may include
- An initial adjustment to discussion online.
- Difficulty in discussion closure.
- Heavier student and instructor workload.
- Lack of face-to-face contact.
This latter concern seemed especially important to my students. One said she
was challenged by "the lack of personal contact and the opportunity to
get immediate feedback as compared to traditional classroom discussion."
Klemm (2000) noted several more disadvantages: Students may not realize the
purpose or the importance of online discussion; students do not know what constitutes
"good input," and their talk is trivial, shallow, or repetitive. In
my courses, students also complained about the repetition inherent in asynchronous
discussion. One noted, "At the beginning of the course, I really enjoyed
the online discussion because it gave me a chance to read and share my ideas
and also to hear others. As class went on, it got old, and things were being
said over and over again."
Klemm (2000) stated that, as in oral discussion, a few people may dominate
the discussion. I have found that, because my requirements are specific and
because students may skim or skip responses, domination of the discussion by
a few is not a problem. Klemm also mentioned that some students may "lurk,"
meaning they only read but do not contribute. Unfortunately, students may believe
they are participating because they are reading others' responses, but without
responding, they are effectively walking past the classroom and only looking
in. My students felt this lack of response sharply, and one lamented "I
personally was disappointed because very few people responded to me."
In an attempt to resolve some of these problems, I have begun to share good
models of reflective talk, as well as a checklist (see appendix) to create clearer
expectations. I have also required more questions and more open-ended questions
to be posted by the students facilitating the discussion. For example, with
a class of 10 students, five or six questions for each discussion are adequate.
However, when the class size increases to 15 or more students, I have found
that at least 10 questions are needed. Examples of questions from the graduate
literacy course, Foundations of Developmental Reading, include the following:
- “How does the assertion made by the Commission on Adolescent Literacy
of the International Reading Association contrast with how adolescents are
- "Discuss the importance of Gray's research concerning content area
reading in middle and high school."
- "What qualities do metacognitvely sophisticated readers possess?"
- "Why is constructivism the theoretical perspective taken in this chapter?"
To help online instructors create and sustain quality discussion, Collison
et al. (2000) offered insights into negotiating discussion through an asynchronous
format. They said that by writing their thoughts participants in the discussion
are more aware of the need for clarity and reflection. I discovered just this
in my experience with asynchronous discussion. I found that students tend to
write more formally because they are acutely aware that their written responses
will be read by both the instructor and their peers. Also, they are able to
reread and, consequently, revise their own work for clarity in communication.
To have a successful discussion, the instructor must not only build a community
online, supporting a culture of respect, but a reasoned discourse must be cultivated.
Such a discourse needs to support the cognitive, using feelings and opinions
as a foundation. One of the most common concerns my students had with asynchronous
discussion was that "classmates would do their required postings and that's
it. The purpose was for the discussion but it was very dry." Another noted,
"At times, the responses were difficult to write, especially when the discussion
became mundane." However, this type of discussion may be due to the topic
or writer knowledge and experience rather than the forum for discussion.
Rourke and Anderson (2002) stated that asynchronous discussion allows students
to consider others' contributions and to compose responses that are appropriate
and coherent. Research supports this act of encoding and communicating ideas
through computer technology, which forces cognitive processing and a coherence
directly aligned with effective communication (Daley, 2002; Feenberg, 1998;
Logan, 1995). In fact, Lapadat (2000) investigated the idea that asynchronous
online discussion may be well suited to fostering critical thinking, social
construction of meaning, and shifts in perspective. After teaching four online
courses in three different versions and topics and analyzing the results of
a discourse analysis of the discussions, Lapadat's findings supported her original
ideas about the unique potential of online discussion-based courses as learning
However, other studies (Harrington & Hathaway, 1998; McLoughlin & Luca,
2000) reported that most online discussion consists of sharing and comparing
information, with little evidence of critical analysis or higher order thinking.
Such findings serve to remind us that it is not the technology itself but the
manner in which it is applied that is most critical. As teaching and learning
become more dependent upon computer technology, educators must consider how
to facilitate effective online discussion.
Writing Online as Process and Product
The goal of academic discussion is usually to engage students in a conversation
that enhances their understanding of an idea. In asynchronous discussion, this
goal may be extended to include a well-written critical response. Edelson (1998)
noted that online discussion relies increasingly upon students' literacy skills,
specifically their writing. As an instructor in three graduate literacy programs,
I believe that my students' literacy skills, including writing, should be a
focus of the course, and this focus on writing skills may be turned to an advantage
for all students through the use of asynchronous discussion. For example, the
use of asynchronous discussion that allows for time to write may encourage those
students who are less confident writers. Students are aware of the social context
of a discussion group and perceive other participants as peers (Hrabe, Adamy,
Milman, Washington, & Howard, 1998). Therefore, student writing often improves
because the writer anticipates that it will be read and responded to by peers.
This improvement is in both mechanics and content. Peer and instructor expectations
may provide internal motivation for participation as well as good writing, although
instructor expectations may be made more concrete through modeling and assessment
criteria of the discussion.
Because online discussion has elements of both written and spoken language
(Faigley, 1992), it may be viewed as both discussion (process) and a document
to be assessed (product). The challenge for educators lies in facilitating and
assessing what is being communicated and how such communication is composed.
Before online talk can be assessed, however, educators must have a clear sense
of the differences and similarities between oral and online discussion.
Hewitt (2000) conducted research exploring the influence of oral and computer-mediated
talk on writing in a composition class. Despite many educators' beliefs that
computer-mediated-communication (CMC) influences writing positively (Faigley,
1992; Lafer, 1996; Tuman, 1992), she found little empirical evidence that CMC
is better than oral talk for either communication or influencing writing. In
an attempt to determine whether CMC did influence writing, Hewitt developed
a comparative analysis of peer talk occurring in both oral and CMC environments.
In her study of interactive oral and computer-mediated talk, Hewitt (2000)
considered the similarities between the two. She found that both online and
oral discussion allowed response to the utterances of others, engaged students
in the open-endedness of oral talk, and were both dependent upon context. As
in written language, CMC tended to be closed and finite, but also could be reread,
revised, and proofread before posting. I have found that in allowing students
time to reflect before writing, this rereading, proofreading, and revision is
especially effective in the format of asynchronous discussion.
Although Hewitt's study found that participants in both environments talked
about their writing, the talk had different qualities, dependent upon the media.
Her conclusion, "that the medium shapes the talk" (p. 266), revealed
that "oral talk was more contextually focused on abstract, global idea
development, whereas CMC-generated talk was more focused on concrete writing
issues and group management" (p. 266). She believed that, due to the loss
of visual and aural clues, one of the roles of online discussion in CMC was
to manage the discussion and attempt, through referential language, to provide
Because my online discussions are structured by specific questions, management
and visual or aural clues do not seem to be a problem. These student-generated
questions are derived from the readings and edited by the instructor. They provide
referential language and a context as well as a specific content focus. For
example, the response in Figure 5 gives a thoughtful and critical look at questioning
(“What should teachers keep in mind when asking questions for reading
Current Forum: Chapter Six Discussion: Assisting Comprehension
Read 20 times
Date: Wed Oct 29, 2003 8:17 pm
Subject: Re: Question three
Questioning is an important tool for teachers and is a necessary skill for
students. In a process-oriented approach to comprehension, teachers can
model through examples and guidance how to ask questions and how to answer
them. Students who generate their own questions have a deeper understanding
of the material and learn to think about their own thinking (metacognition).
The act of generating questions helps aid in comprehension as the student
has to organize their thoughts about the subject and put it in his or her
own words. Higher-level questions can be modeled and encouraged as students
are asked to use information in a new situation or to break down and classify
information. Relating to the affective domain also helps in comprehension
as students are asked how do you feel about or how does this make you feel?
Teachers can model that it is important to accept more than one answer to
a question and to ask for answers to why questions. Questioning at increasing
cognitive levels and the sharing of different points of view helps to relate
knowledge to the lives of our students.
Current Thread Detail:
Question three Wed Oct 29, 2003 8:17 pm Re: Question three Wed Oct 29, 2003
10:08 pm Re: Question three Thurs Oct 30, 2003 7:02 am Re: Question three
Thurs Oct 30, 2003 9:55 pm Re: Question three Sat Nov 1, 2003 10:38 am Re:
Question three Sat Nov 1, 2003 1:34 pm
Re: Question three Sat Nov 1, 2003 1:56 pm
Re: Question three Sun Nov 2, 2003 5:34 pm Re: Question three Sun Nov 2,
2003 8:33 pm
|Figure 5. Example of a thoughtful response.
This writer focused on the relevant concepts in questioning and related them
thoughtfully to applications for both teachers and students. Her use of educational
terms and her move from general to specific indicates a clear understanding
of the issue that was communicated in her writing.
Although students are able to participate in asynchronous discussion outside
of specific time and place, freeing them to consider and compose more complete
responses, Hewitt believed the end result may lack the "immediacy of oral
conversation" (p. 283). Peer talk may be posted but never receive a response.
Due to this lack of an interactive environment, the self-generation of ideas
suffers. Hewitt (2000) suggested that software that organizes talk by subject
matter may help to "unthread the multivocal tapestry" (p. 284) she
found frustrating for so many students.
During asynchronous discussion, while one individual responds to another's
comment, the computer may keep posting others' comments. Therefore, participants
in this type of discussion do not need to take turns. This "multiple-threaded
discussion" (LaGrandeur, 1997, p. 19), similar to what Hewitt found so
frustrating for her students, erases power structures because it is able to
go beyond the limits set for traditional oral discussion. LaGrandeur (1997)
considered what may happen when a machine, teachers, and students are all "spliced"
into one system and noted that traditional approaches are no longer valid. However,
as students become more computer literate and more familiar with nontraditional
approaches such as asynchronous discussion, the challenges of the “multi-threaded
discussion” and the “multivocal tapestry” may diminish.
Because written discourse has the potential to promote and support thinking
and the construction of knowledge (Emig, 1977; Langer & Applebee, 1987),
asynchronous discussion is especially powerful in allowing students to construct
new shared knowledge. Lacking visual and aural clues, explicitness (such as
a framework based on content questions) is required for effective written communication,
and the very nature of writing as an active process makes it an effective tool
for shaping and sharing thoughts. Gaddis, Napierkowski, Guzman, and Muth (2000)
found that online discussion created an increased awareness of students’
writing. Their text of talk served as a forum for discussion but also provided
a document for reference and assessment. The visible evidence of a script that
provides evidence of sharing, reasoning, and arguing in group discussion enables
students to understand that knowledge is socially and culturally constructed.
Because thinking processes and the growth of knowledge result from social
interactions, as well as socially constructed knowledge (Bruffee, 1993; Moll
& Greenberg, 1990), the social constructivist perspective provides a pedagogical
rationale for discussion. Specifically, student discussion has the potential
to motivate inquiry and create a learning context in which collaborative meaning
making occurs (Mason, 1998; Pontecorvo, 1990).
My own experiences with asynchronous discussion have helped me to understand
this more clearly because I have found that such discussion provides a text
of talk offering a documentation of students’ reflections and scaffolding.
My students brought their experiences as writers, students, and teachers to
the discussion and created a learning context centered around their ideas, their
knowledge, and the specific topics discussed.
Asynchronous discussion as opposed to synchronous discussion is often preferred
by students (Bhattacharaya, 1999; Davidson-Shivers et al., 2000) because the
former provides an opportunity for them to read, reflect, and then respond.
In addition to this opportunity for reflection before responding, I have considered
other key differences between in-class (traditional) discussion and asynchronous
discussion. A major component of the latter, as noted earlier, is the documentation
of student talk. This “text of talk” provides instructors the unique
opportunity to assess what has been written and students the unique opportunity
to read what they, as well as their peers, have written as many times as they
In the traditional classroom, discussion is often dominated by the instructor
or a few students. The nature of asynchronous discussion allows all voices to
be heard because (a) students are usually required to respond and their participation
can be easily documented and (b) those who may be intimidated by speaking in
front of their peers or those who need more response time are more easily able
Such an online format seems to provide a safety net for many students. They
are able to be more expressive due to the nature of this out-of-time discussion,
and many may take more risks with their talk because they are physically distanced
from their listeners.
One concern I have with the use of asynchronous discussion is how to facilitate
and assess students’ critical thinking. There is often a lack of reflective
talk and, in turn, too much shallow or repetitive talk. A number of studies
(Collison et al., 2000; Lapadat, 2000; Rourke & Anderson, 2002) offer insights
into negotiating thoughtful, reflective discussion. A main argument proposes
that, by writing their thoughts, participants in the discussion are more aware
of the need for clarity and reflection. Other studies (Harrington & Hathaway,
1998; McLoughlin & Luca, 2000), however, report that online discussion consists
of little evidence of critical thinking. My own experience with asynchronous
discussion has seen both types of student discussion, prompting me to believe
even more in the importance of structure and facilitation when using such a
forum. Good discussion should engage students in collaborative meaning making,
but the challenge lies with the instructor to facilitate this. Some recommendations
offered from my own experience for thoughtful, reflective asynchronous discussion
include the following:
- Specific guidelines, checklists, and rubrics regarding acceptable responses.
- Modeling of what constitutes a “reflective piece.”
- Well-designed open-ended questions and topics to provide a context for
the discussion and to help students stay centered. (I have students create
them, and I approve them, usually editing or adding something.)
- Requirement of specific connections made to the readings. (In this way,
I am able to get students to pay attention to important people and ideas noted
in the text and journal articles.)
- Private note to students who are inappropriate or off topic with their
- Summary or wrap up of the discussion by the instructor or students.
- Accountability. (I assign one quarter to one fifth of students’ total
grade to their responses online.)
With clear instructor expectations and facilitation of the discussion, online
talk has the potential to grow from shallow and sharing to thoughtful and reflective.
Finally, I have considered the challenges of using asynchronous discussion.
I believe one of the major challenges is the increased workload for the instructor.
Instructors must initially learn the computer program that structures the online
discussion. Then they must monitor students’ responses. They must assess
students’ responses, and finally, they must be constantly available to
answer questions or clarify assignments.
One of the primary ways in which I have attempted to lighten this workload
is to expect and require a high level of responsibility from my students. Specifically,
I require them to monitor the online discussion. At the beginning of the course,
I have students in a small group select a topic that is aligned with related
readings. That group is then responsible for the online questions, monitoring
and facilitating the discussion, and crafting a final wrap-up when the discussion
has finished. I do not add my voice to the discussion because I have found that
when I do all students turn to me and neglect the talk of their peers. I do,
however, formally monitor the discussion in three ways:
- Ensure that the questions are appropriately answered.
- Take note of the key ideas and concerns that arise from the discussion.
- Assess each student’s online talk according to the checklist (appendix).
As for being constantly available, a concept that seems to have arisen with
students’ use of email at any time of the day, I inform my students early
in the semester that I will respond to their questions within 1 week. If they
need an earlier response, they may call me by phone during my office hours.
This strategy seems to alleviate their concerns, as well as their expectations
for immediate responses.
Another challenge of asynchronous discussion is the need for student participation.
Because we do not meet weekly in real time, I expect all students to regularly
participate in the online discussion. Their failure to do so is reflected in
an assessment of their online talk, whether through lack of responses, lack
of reflective responses, or lack of adherence to the timeframe given to responses.
(Students usually have 10 to 12 days to respond at least five times, and those
responses must span at least a 6-day period.) Since I have incorporated this
structure, most students are motivated to participate fully.
As we move into the 21st century, technology plays an increasing role in our
lives. It provides educators with more options and possibilities even as we
continue to expect quality work from our students. The challenge lies within
us – what do we let go and what do we hold fast? Whether or not the traditional
(same time/same place) classroom endures, online discussion and other nontraditional
approaches to teaching and learning will persist and probably increase. We have
an opportunity, through the use of asynchronous discussion, to move our students
forward – in technology, in critical thinking, and in modeling the use
of nontraditional approaches to teaching and learning.
If asynchronous discussion is used well, that is, if it can become a forum
for a sharing of ideas and a scaffolding of students’ knowledge as any
good discussion should, it has the capacity to increase the quantity and quality
of students’ online interactions, and it has the potential to improve
their discussion, their writing, and their thinking.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University
of Texas Press.
Bhattacharaya, M. (1999, October). A study of asynchronous and synchronous
discussion on cognitive maps in a distributed learning environment. WebNet
99 World Conference on the World Wide Web and Internet Proceedings, Honolulu,
HI. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED448698)
Bruffee, K.A. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence,
and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Burge, E.J., Laroque, D., & Boak, C. (2000). Baring professional souls:
Reflections on Web life. Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 81-89.
Collison, G., Elbaum, B., Haavind, S., & Tinker, R. (2000). Facilitating
online learning. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Cowan, J. (1998). On becoming an innovative university teacher: Reflection
in action. Milton Keynes, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education
and Open University Press.
Daley, B. (2002). An exploration of electronic discussion as an adult learning
strategy. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 11, 53-66.
Davidson-Shivers, G, Tanner, E., & Muilenburg, L. (2000, April). Online
discussion: How do students participate? Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC
Document Reproduction No. ED443410)
Dejnozka, E.L., & Kapel, D.E. (Eds.). (1991). American educators' encyclopedia.
New York: Greenwood Press.
Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481-533.
Dysthe, O. (1996). The multivoiced classroom: Interactions of writing and classroom
discourse. Written Communication, 13(3), 385-425.
Edelson, P.J. (1998, February). The organization of courses via the Internet,
academic aspects, interaction, evaluation, and accreditation. Paper presented
at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City. (ERIC Document
Reproduction No. ED 421644)
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and
Communication, 28, 122-128.
Faigley, L. (1992). Fragments of rationality: Postmodernity and the subject
of composition. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Farstrup, A.E., & Samuels, S.J. (Eds.). (2002). What research has to
say about reading instruction (3rd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading
Feenberg, A. (2001, April). The changing debate over online education. AFT
On Campus, p. 12.
Gaddis, B. Napierkowski, H. Guzman, N., & Muth, R. (2000, October). A
comparison of collaborative learning and audience awareness on two computer-mediated
writing environments. Annual proceedings of selected research and development
papers presented at the 23rd National Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology (Vol. 1-2), Denver, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED455771)
Harrington, H., & Hathaway, R. (1998). Computer conferencing, critical
reflection, and teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(5),
Hewitt, B.L. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated
peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and Composition,
Hrabe, M.E., Adamy, P.H., Milman, N. B., Washington, L.A., & Howard, L.A.
(1998, March). Curry CONNECT: How online discourse creates community for education
students. Proceedings of the ninth annual Society for Information Technology
and Teacher Education International Conference, Washington, DC. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED421165)
Klemm, W.R. (2000, November). What’s wrong with online discussions and
how to fix it. Proceedings of the WebNet 2000 World Conference on the World
Wide Web and Internet, San Antonio, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction No.
Lafer, S. (1996). Audience, the computer, and the development of writing ability.
Computers in the Schools, 12(5), 141-152.
LaGrandeur, K. (1997, March). Splicing ourselves into the machine: Electronic
communities, systems theory, and composition studies. Paper presented at
the 48th annual meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication,
Phoenix, AZ. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED410563)
Lapadat, J.C. (2000, May). Teaching online: Breaking new ground in collaborative
thinking. Paper presented at the 28th annual conference of the Canadian
Society for the Study of Education Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED443420)
Lang, D. (2000). Critical thinking in web courses. Syllabus, 9, 20-24.
Langer, J.A., & Applebee, A. (1987). How writing shapes thinking.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Lehman, J.D., Warfield, J., Palm, M., & Wood, T. (2001). Making teaching
public: Supporting teachers’ inquiry through the Internet. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 33(5).
Logan, R. (1995). The fifth language: Learning and living in the Computer
Age. Toronto: Stoddart.
Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school
context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science,
McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2000, February). Cognitive engagement and higher
order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how?
In A. Herrmann & M.M. Kulski, (Eds.), Flexible futures in tertiary teaching.
Proceedings of the ninth annual Teaching and Learning Forum. Retrieved March
28, 2005, from http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/contents.html
Misanchuk, M., Anderson, T., Craner, J., Eddy, P., & Smith, C.L. (2000,
October). Strategies for creating and supporting a community of learners.
Annual proceedings of selected research and development papers presented at
the 23rd annual National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications
and Technology (Vol. 1-2), Denver, CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction No.
Moll, L.C., & Greenberg, J.B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities:
Combining social contexts for instruction. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky
and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical
psychology (pp. 319-348). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Oliver, M., & Naidu, S. (1997). Computer supported collaborative problem-based
learning (CSC-PBL): A learner-centered design architecture for nurse education.
In J. Conway, R. Fisher, L. Sheridan-Burns, & G. Ryan (Eds.), Research
and development in problem-based learning (Vol. 4; pp. 487-496). Newcastle:
Australia, Australian Problem-Based Learning Network.
Pontecorvo, C. (1990). Social context, semiotic mediation, and forms of discourse
in constructing knowledge at school. In H. Mandl, E. DeCorte, S. N. Bennett,
& H.F. Friedrich (Eds.), Learning and instruction, European research
in an international context Vol. 2:1. Social and cognitive aspects of learning
and instruction (pp.1-26). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Pressley, M. (1998). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction
of? In M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr. (Eds.), Handbook
of reading research (Vol. 3; pp. 545-562). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Using peer teams to lead online discussions.
Journal of Interactive Media, 2002(1). Retrieved March 28, 2005, from http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/1/rourke-anderson-02-1-t.html
Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2004). Defining critical thinking. The Critical
Thinking Community. Retrieved January 19, 2005, from http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml
Tuman, M.C. (1992). Word perfect: Literacy in the Computer Age. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
State University of New York, College at Oneonta